Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Peckris

Expert Grader
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    9,800

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Posts posted by Peckris

  2. Posted

    38 minutes ago, DaveG38 said:

    According to FIFA England are ranked above Croatia, Columbia and Sweden, although not by much. Sorry, but I had to laugh at your comment about England's drawback being their inability to convert chances. The whole point of the game isn't to play well or have a good goalie/defence, its to score goals and that means converting chances. Its the key drawback - and as I said England failed, as they always do.

    Wrong. They failed but not "as" they always do. They normally fail without playing creative enterprising skillful football. They made a lot of friends this time round, and got further than they usually do. They simply didn't look like any England side of recent years, not even Glenn Hoddle's 1998 side. Aren't you just being a bit cynical? 

  3. Posted

    2 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

    Yes, other 'good' teams did poorly in this World Cup, but that is not relevant to how well England played and the results they achieved. Arguably, if some of those other teams had done better and England had to play them then they would have gone out at an earlier stage. As it is the only quality side England played was Croatia and they failed.

    Define 'quality'? I believe Sweden may be ranked higher than England. And Colombia aren't pushovers either. I actually thought England played very well - a lot of one-touch play which found the man, creativity and pace  going forward, a good goalie, and a very reasonable defence. The biggest drawback was their inability to convert chances into goals. 

    As for Croatia, they put out Argentina - Aguero, Messi, di Maria, Higuain, Mascherano, and all - so can't be considered lightly. As it is, England could have beaten them - indeed were looking likely to in the first half - if they'd put away a couple of chances; Croatia snaffled theirs and in the end 2-1 was fair enough, though it could easily have been 2-1 the other way, such is football.

    We would most likely have lost to France had we made it to the Final.

  4. Posted

    1 hour ago, 1949threepence said:

    With the Croatia game, it was obvious we needed a second goal. If we'd got that in the first half when we were on top, game over.

    But it wasn't to be.  

    Yes - the one single criticism I have of this England team is that they create lots of chances but put too few of them away.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    1 hour ago, DaveG38 said:

    I think we need to inject a dose of realism into assessing England's performance. Yes, they reached the semi-finals, and that represents a pretty fair achievement, until you start to look at the manner of their progression.

    Firstly, the win over Tunisia, a very average footballing nation, was close and not very convincing. Then there was Panama. Yes, a good thumping great score, but scarcely unexpected against such a third rate team. Next Belgium - the battle of the second teams. Even so, a 1-0 loss wasn't exactly a great result, but it did put England into the 'easier' half of the draw.

    From the group stage, England managed a pretty poor performance against Columbia, scraping through on the penalties - again hardly a convincing win. The Sweden match was better and the 2-0 win was deserved, but England weren't exactly playing a top team in Sweden, so winning was not a great achievement.

    When they did come up against some decent opposition, as they did for the first time in Croatia, they failed. Their second half performance was woeful, as was their play during extra time. Basically, they were outplayed by a very mediocre team. 

    In the Tunisia, Columbia and Croatia games they managed to turn a winning position into a losing or drawing one by slackening off and giving the appearence of thinking that the games were won.

    So, they did well to get where they did, but it was the easiest route with no real challenging teams to have to overcome. Based on this, I don't share the euphoria about the England performance as everyone else does. I don't think they were any better than earlier England teams - they just had an easier ride and a bit more luck. As I said in an earlier post, England never fail to disappoint, and this World Cup was no different really.

    Unfortunately one thing you've omitted - and this is important - is how poorly the 'big' teams did: Germany, Spain, and Argentina especially, and even Brazil. So before saying how easy it was for England (and yes, comparatively it was), there were so-called 'better' teams that did far worse.

  6. Posted

    14 hours ago, DrLarry said:

    i have asked myself that very same question many times it made no sense to me at all , other than the fact that there are no others until 1926 are there ?  I always assumed that is the only rational answer ....but I agree it is a very strange thing 

    The 1926ME (standard issue) penny is the only Modified Effigy mule. The 1925ME halfpenny came with a modified reverse, as did the 1926 farthing. The 1926ME silver is always paired with the older pre-ME reverse, but they are not considered mules as there was a whole new set of reverses in the pipeline, which were issued (mostly just as proofs) in 1927.

    The questions that have to be asked about  the 1926 penny issue are:

    1. Why was it such a small issue - 4m - after 3 years with no pennies at all, and a big issue planned with redesigned obverse and reverse for 1927?

    2. Why are most 1926 pennies of the older type, with the ME mule appearing at the end of its run?

    My theory accounts for both questions, but will have to remain theoretical in the absence of Mint documentation.

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    Just now, DrLarry said:

    oh really on two dates?  just goes to show there are so many things we have not yet discovered and as you say tip of the iceberg goers who is to say what someone might find !!! 

    Oh yes. There are several variants of 1922, at least one is probably unique, and a few extremely rare 1926MEs.

    The beginning point is to ask yourself : "Why was the 1926ME penny a mule?" No-one has ever come up with a definitive answer but I have a theory...

  8. Posted

    Just now, DrLarry said:

    yes I am pretty much done with buying I have thousands to prepare and admire across the ages from staters to sixpences 3000 years of history is enough even for me ....I did find one of those funny old 1922's with the strange trident detached from the teeth the other day.  My modified 26's sadly would not rank high on my best of bunch 

    Haha. You've barely dipped your toe in the water. There's a whole book waiting to be written...

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    13 hours ago, NRP said:

    I believe these gold proofs are undervalued in relation to US coins, a coin as rare as the 1927 halfcrown in gold would be nearer to a million dollars or more if it was a US coin.

    It's well known fact that Americans (apaart from members of this forum ;)) have more money than sense.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    1 hour ago, Sword said:

    The issue price of the 1927 proof set in cardboard box was 15 shillings. Face value of the coins is 11 shillings 3d. (Information from a document posted by Gary D several years ago.) 

    Hence, it would not have been a big loss for spending them if you were hard up.

    I'm more drawn to the sticky-fingered child theory. I find it harder to envisage a collector buying a proof set (which had to be applied for, by the way) then spending it especially when you consider that coin collecting was not an arena for the working classes of that time.

  21. Posted

    8 hours ago, Peter said:

    1942-44 silver 3ds were colonial as well.I'm sure enterprising dealers filled their socks post WW 11.

    Not nearly as rare as they were considered to be in the 60s. And they probably all got saved and escaped the Great Silver 3d Meltdown.

  23. Posted

    I'm not sure how the values of precious metals were established, but I would guess by market forces. Certain Roman emperors and Tudor monarchs - with varying degrees of slyness - reduced the silver content of coins, to reduce mintage costs or clear debts. If they had simply been able to declare that silver was worth more than it had been, and reduce the content in the coinage openly, I'm sure they would have done so.

  24. Posted

    21 minutes ago, DrLarry said:

    Jerry could you explain for me the process of "filling the die locally" do you mean physically insert a piece of metal the hope it stays in place?   This little journey with this E over B? in the 61 LCW reverse is proving to be quite interesting.  I will prepare the pictures and let you take a look I have gone through about 20 and there are indicators and I would value your or anyone else's input who may have some 61's 

    Thanks 

    That would be impossible considering the enormous force with which the die hits the blank. The only way IMO is to repunch the erroneous letter, which would certainly leave some trace of the underlying letter. That is obviously not the case with the ONF penny for example, where it's a case of die fill through gradual process, not a stray piece of metal. Where a piece of metal does stick to the die - a brockage for example - it survives only for a single subsequent strike, which is why brockages are unique.

  25. Posted

    I think perhaps we should leave Larry alone. He didn't start the offending topic about Water Aid, and the person who did has now apologised for certain statements made attacking other members. To that extent we should draw a line under all this, as it's not serving any purpose.

    I doubt that the politics of the majority of members here strike much if any sympathy with me, but this is a coins forum, and we'd be better off banning politics and religion outright. Even in the 'Nothing whatever to do with coins' forum. Here we can meet on a numismatic footing and let's keep it that way. 

    • Like 7
×